Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

BJ_Covert_Action writes to let us know that an Oregon congressman has filed legislation to spend $154.5M for a research project into tracking per-vehicle mileage in the US, and asks: "Do we really want the government to track our movement and driving habits on a regular basis?" "US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system... Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee... the [Oregon] report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices." Here is the bill (PDF). The article notes that the congressman's major corporate donors would likely benefit with contracts if such a program were begun.

Fraud Alert: This is my best understanding. This is a new part of a very old effort. I remember protesting it many years ago.

There is some company in Oregon that expects to sell the equipment that would track miles. Quote from the article: "Honeywell International, for example, is a major manufacturer RFID equipment. The company also happens to be the second biggest contributor in the current cycle to Blumenauer's Political Action Committee..."

The mileage-tracking would download data remotely, using the same radio wave band used by wi-fi, or close. Every car would have the new equipment. A little aluminum foil over your car's antenna would stop the functioning of the system.

Quote from the article referenced by Slashdot: "... the report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanning devices." How long would it be until a hacker reported that his vehicle was in Canada? Maybe, "Oh, yes, yesterday I was driving in the Kamchatka peninsula, after a long trip around the moon."

The biggest problem is that even the study would be extremely expensive for taxpayers ("... $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system...") The second biggest problem is that buying the equipment would make Blumenauer's friends rich and taxpayers poor. The third problem is that it wouldn't work. There would be many, many failures in the equipment.

If that is true, it is fraud, an attempt to profit by using government power to do something bad for everyone, and US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) should be recalled as soon as possible, and barred from ever again participating in politics.

Often the actions of the U.S. government seem shockingly corrupt.

Someone would get the money, "$154,500,000 for research and study", even if no working system were produced.

I called Representative Blumenauer's phone number and talked with Mr. Willy
Smith there. I didn't know that members of Congress cannot be recalled.

Apparently no one in Rep. Blumenauer's office has any technical
knowledge whatsoever. That's what Willy Smith told me. Apparently no one in
that office realizes that their complete ignorance could possibly be a
concern.

Mr. Smith told me, "Representative Blumenauer has never done heart
surgery. Does that mean he cannot introduce health care legislation?"
First, Representative Blumenauer knows a lot about heart surgery if he has
read news reports over the last 20 years. He knows, for example, that heart
surgery often fails. He knows the sociology of heart surgery because he has
heard his friends and family talk about it.

Second, yes, if he doesn't thoroughly understand something, he should
not make expensive proposals about it, especially since it seems that no one
in his office wants to learn. Certainly that is the impression I got from Mr.
Smith. Although we had a friendly, respectful conversation, nothing I said
seemed to make any difference to him.

Wi-Fi and RFID are entirely voluntary technologies. They depend for
their operation on the idea that the users want the technology to work. When
the GPS on a United Parcel Service delivery truck fails, the central office
can call the driver on his cell phone. The driver will be happy to say where
he is. Failures are unfortunate, but soft and friendly.

Tracking the location of every car is NOT a voluntary use. Any
failure or accidental interference would be a reason for a court case.

Mr. Smith told me that many people say very negative things about
legislation introduced by Representative Blumenauer and other senators and
representatives. So, why should he listen to me, he implied. Good point.

People are, at present, saying very negative things about President
Obama's health care bill. Generally what they say is poorly expressed. But
certainly they have some reason for complaint. President Obama is trying to
accomplish something in a way that is socially impossible. Hillary Clinton tried
another confused bill, and her ideas were rejected, also. However, although many people don't like the health care bill, no one seems to think that President Obama intends to profit personally.

One of the problems with Representative Blumenauer's actions
concerning the 2009 H.R. 3311 bill is that, to a lot of knowledgeable people, they
look like criminal fraud. He has taken money from companies that sell GPS
technology. He is proposing that those companies get a huge amount of taxpayer
money, for a study. That means that the companies can spend taxpayer
money, but they don't have to produce anything useful. Maybe a study could
cost $100,000. But $145 MILLION? For something that any technically
knowledgeable person knows immediately cannot work well? That looks like
criminal behavior.

Can Representative Blumenauer be ignorant of the fact that people
don't want to be tracked everywhere they drive? Certainly, people think, he cannot
be that ignorant. Therefore, they think, when he completely ignores the issue of privacy,
he must understand what he's doing.

Actually, as an Oregon Democract, this is one issue where I'd like to punch my governor in the teeth.

Not only is this proposal an offensive infringement of my rights, but it also takes away incentives to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The core reasoning for this tax scheme is that greater fuel efficiency has led to serious drops in state fuel tax revenues. But rather than embrace this as a good thing, the "brain trust" in Salem would rather take away the incentive.

It's like being upset that less smokers means less sin taxes and deciding to put a high tax on nicotine gum to compensate. What. The. Hell.

For the record, here's the increase in the US debt:WW2 to 1980: $1TReagan: $1T to $3T = +2T or 200% in 8 yearsBush 1: $3T to $5T = +2T or 66% in 4 yearsClinton: $5T to $6T = +1T or 20% in 8 yearsBush Jr: $6T to $11T = +5T or 83% in 8 years

So the Republican's "smaller govt" added $9T of the $11T to our national debt.The hypocrisy of the right on this would be hysterical if they didn't believe it so deeply. So it's just pathetic.

And a GPS can't be removed and left at home? Slightly harder but come on. Anybody with the wherewithal to change the odometer can probably find out a way to remove the GPS or something too.

Yeah, if all they really cared about was tracking mileage to tax us appropriately (which on the surface I dont think most people would mind) then they could come up with a harder to tamper with odometer that would probably be way cheaper than a GPS.

But lets face it. If they force GPS on us, well, that's great news for GPS makers. And auto makers (markup, installs on older cars, etc). And insurance companies. And law enforcement. Hell its great for everybody, except the people driving the cars.

In essence it's replacing the gas tax. The original idea was to tax people in a manner which was proportionate to the use of the resource. A sort of user fee other than tolls. As people use more fuel efficient vehicles, the taxes to pay for the roads are going to have to come from somewhere, charging people a tax based upon roughly how much they used the resource seems fair.

It's essentially an avoidable tax, if you don't want to pay for it, you don't have to, just don't use the resource that it's paying

but I do know that using a GPS over an odometer is not a case of teh ebil gubermint wanting to spy on you. There are legitimate reasons to do so.

No you don't. How are you using the word "legitimate"?

If you mean lawful, well then that is bullshit. It used to be lawful to own black people as slaves. Forgive the hyperbole, but a laws are not intrinsically ethical, moral, fair, etc. If a law is unjust then it is my duty to perform civil disobedience. The idea that I should follow all laws and use the "approved" channels to change it is is insanity. When those "approved" channels are tightly controlled and effectively blockaded, by only remedy IS civil disobedience to the point I can attempt another avenue, which is the judicial process. Sometimes change can only occur through a litigation vehicle. Most bullshit does not get changed through lobbying, but through court processes in which laws are found to be unconstitutional. In order for that to happen though, someone has to be harmed by that law first.

Now if you mean genuine, which is another definition of legitimate, you cannot possibly know that. Additionally, tin foil aside, the actions of the U.S government have demonstrated a complete disregard for our rights to privacy, anonymity, etc. What about the scandal with the telcos, the NSA, and phone records? That has less media attention now, but they got away with it.

It is quite reasonable for me to believe the worst intentions with this GPS data as my government has already demonstrated an intense desire to possess this information and use it for intelligence gathering purposes. My government has also demonstrated a concerning pattern of abuse of it's citizens in the last 100 years for sociopolitical reasons. Hoover is well known to have hated Martin Luther King and to have abused his power to illegally monitor a U.S Citizen because of conflicting ideologies and political beliefs. MLK was just one of many and Hoover has not been the only government official to abuse their position of power.

With all due respect, you cannot state you know the government has no intentions of spying on us. Your usage of the word tin foil is also offensive (mildly). You do not need to denigrate and disrespect those of us that have good and legitimate reasons to fear this government. If you are an activist working against unjust laws and corruption, or are a whistleblower, you have good reason to fear the apparent conspiracy between corporations, government officials, and our legislators. All three entities possess a non-trivial amount of power and influence over our lives and there are examples in which political activists have been targeted and powers abused.

Your point is logical and reasonable about how a GPS is required to tax mileage. Of course an odometer will not work in this situation at all. I agree GPS is required. However, I think the real argument comes down to whether or not I want a presumably more fair and efficient method of tax collection (ostensibly to provide me with a well working infrastructure) while also risking the government permanently recording my movements and then later using that against me.

Personally, I fear the government's actions with the data more than my concerns over an unfair and less efficient method of taxing vehicle usage. We can come up with different, more passive methods of tax collection. THAT is not tin foil speaking, Sir. Not at all.

Your fear of the government is naive. It isn't the government that is out to use and abuse us, it is the ruling class, and they gave up on using governments as their primary tool long ago. Nowadays, the weapons of oppression are called 'corporations.'

I am NOT naive and your insult is uncalled for. Your distinction between government, the "ruling class" (now that sounds like tin foil), and corporations is unnecessary and only serves to support your baseless insult.

I had already mentioned the interaction between government and corporations, so I clearly have an understanding of the relationship between the two. Therefore, naive is hardly a word to describe my understanding, and it's context can only be construed as a condescending insult.

Furthermore, although corporations wield influence, ONLY the government can effect the theft of life, liberty, and property. There are also considerations in the many Wars (Iraq,Terrorism,Drugs,etc.) that are completely separate from corporations.

A corporation may collect data on me and annoy me with advertising, affect my life with usury, and disseminate information without my consent. It may abuse the legal process and my ignorance of the legal language to gain judgments against me and my property. However, in order to DO anything they must still obtain the services of the "government". A sheriff has to show up to my property to evict me. A foreclosure must be approved by the judge. So on and so forth.

So it is not "simple" or naive to fear the government more than corporations, since in the end, it will be a representative of government that knocks on your door to deprive you of your freedom (jail) and your possessions (judgments).

Better a gas tax AND a hefty graduated annual excise tax on oversize trucks and SUVs with poor mileage. Make it simple, say, $200/year for every MPG under the mandated 35MPG average. Want to drive that 12MPG Excursion or F-350? Fine. That's $4,600 a year, please.

Hope the overcompensaion was worth it.

The average European family does just fine with compact cars like Fiats and VWs. If they can do it, then so can the average US family. (Of course, the average US family may need to go on a diet first. But then a

You've obviously never been to Oregon. I've never lived in a more elitist state. Now I wonder who is going to pay for those mandated GPS devices! Knowing the mindset of the typical Oregonian politician I can guarantee you they never thought of that or the repercussions of having very poor families (Oregon has A LOT) shell out cash they don't have for something they don't need.

Oh I forgot, we're talking about Oregon, the state where cyclists (who pay nothing) have more rights

Just for kicks, I decided to google for your string. I found one incident that was related on a blog. Summary of incident: driver backs out of a parking spot, hits a biker, biker group gets mad, driver ends up getting hit in the back of the head with an object. No verification is possible on this incident, and I certainly can't find your implication that this a common incident - or even happened more than once.

As for the cyclist gangs, that's just the regularly scheduled critical mass ride. It's a *normally* well policed and well organized event - there are plenty where I am and in other places in the world, and it's the first time I've heard any altercation happen that was started by a cyclist.

No, to me, your post sounds like typical road rage: the road belongs to me, and everyone else on it is a raging idiot who should be shot. Not to mention that I knew the instant I read the word elitist, I knew the direction your post would go in. I'm pretty sure also you're part of the idiots who sit in traffic school and think they're perfect drivers, and that everything that happens to them is the fault of other people.

No, to me, your post sounds like typical road rage: the road belongs to me, and everyone else on it is a raging idiot who should be shot.

Everyone else? No, many people, especially those in cars, follow the laws. Some don't. Some go the wrong way around traffic circles. Some do run stop signs. They're wrong.

Now count the number of bicyclists who break the law on a regular basis. The ones who come to a stop sign crossing a busy road and instead of stopping like the law requires, swerve over a couple of feet and ride through the crosswalk as if they were pedestrians. That puts not only themselves but the pedestrians in that crosswalk in danger.

The ones I really love are the ones who approach the main road from a side-street (with a stop sign for them) at full speed, while I'm going through that intersection, and instead of stopping or even slowing down, they make a sharp right turn into the bike lane. Someday one of them will hit a piece of gravel in the road, or some dirt, and lose control, sliding themselves under my car. They'll be dead or disabled, and it won't be my fault, but that won't make me feel any better about it, and it won't keep the rabid anti-car nuts from harassing me for the rest of my life.

No, it's not "road rage based on owning the road", it's anger that those who are supposed to share the road with me are breaking the laws and putting not only themselves but me in danger, and they do it on a regular basis with no reason to expect repercussions -- as if THEY owned the road and I better get out of THEIR way. So, you have it exactly backwards.

I'm pretty sure also you're part of the idiots who sit in traffic school and think they're perfect drivers,...

I stop at stop signs, I stop for peds. Not a perfect driver, but I'll compare my record with nearly every bicyclist I've ever seen on the road.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't take into account the basis of the laws of the road: they are all predicated on vehicles being cars. Car drivers have much reduced vision, awareness and control as compared to cyclists and cars also have a far greater capacity to cause damage to others. Thus their behaviour needs to be very strictly controlled. Given these things, it is easy to make the argument that cyclists should be allowed more freedoms than cars, so while these people are breaking la

inspired me to make my first Youtube video. After reading our claim, on my way home from work, I recorded one minute of traffic at a stop sign (one take, no retries). 6 cars, no full stops, 3 blatant runs, and nobody "stopping" at the stop line. (And the first car, the one that mostly nearly stopped, did so because it was impeded by a car in front of it that did not make the take.) I will admit, this is not a large sta

And a bicyclist does not have more rights a car (although a pedestrian does), they are supposed to be treated the same as any other vehicle on the road.

Well, they are SUPPOSED to be treated the same, but the reality is much, much different. Maybe you don't live in Oregon so you don't know what goes on here.

If as many cars simply ignored as many stop signs as bicyclists do, there would be cop cars monitoring every intersection just waiting to write tickets. The last time a cop gave a bicyclist a ticket for ignoring a stop sign here, the papers filled with rage that the cop was wasting his time enforcing a law that shouldn't exist.

I don't know about Portland's packs of cyclists, but they do the same thing in Eugene. They plan events intended to block the roads (the LAW says they are to ride single file on the right, you know) to annoy and harass drivers. Not long ago, they did this on a major bridge and they hindered an ambulance going to a medical emergency. Did anyone get ticketed? Yeah, right.

Locally, a distracted SUV driver ran over a bicyclist. Yes, bad thing. She got ticketed (properly) and the papers filled with rage about her arrogant disregard for human life. (Because she drives a car, she automatically has an arrogant disregard for human life, according to our bicyclist pals.) About a day later, a BICYCLIST ran down a PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK, putting the pedestrian in the hospital with major injuries. (In case you don't know Oregon law, ALL vehicles MUST STOP for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and crosswalks exist at intersections even if they aren't marked...) Did the bicyclist get a ticket for his arrogant disregard for human life? Of course not. Did his fellow bicyclists condemn him? They were too busy making excuses for him to ever say anything bad. (It was dark out. The ped wasn't wearing reflective clothing. It was rainy. The bike's headlight wasn't strong enough to see him... Everything they used as an excuse just proved the bicyclist was going too fast for conditions -- a ticketable offense for car drivers.)

No, I don't think you can honestly say that bicycle riders (more than a very small handful) believe they are supposed to follow the same laws every other vehicle is, or that they are even close to being treated by law enforcement as if they are supposed to.

Here is another article with data from a 2006 ODOT survey: http://velocommuter.org/blog/?p=76 [velocommuter.org] there were on average 11,109 bike commuters vs. 197,632 car drivers, city wide. So yes, EVEN in this town, EVEN near "the campus" (PSU? UP? I'm assuming downtown by PSU).

Ahhh, yes, the ubiquitous "drivers break the law too" excuse that makes bicyclists as pure as the driven snow. Doesn't work that way.

It doesn't make cyclists as pure as snow, it just deflates the argument that "ZOMG so many bikers break the law, if drivers did that it would be INSANE!" argument that seems to persist.

As if bicyclists never speed.

It's true, they do, but it's a lot harder to speed on a bike. My last ride, on Sunday, my average speed for the ride over 13 miles was approximately 8.5 MPH, calculated by my GPS. I might have broken some laws there.

As if there wasn't an order of magnitude difference between a driver going five over on an interstate where everyone is going the same speed and the road was designed for twenty over the current limits

Doesn't make it any less illegal. Last time I checked the speed limits were pretty much set, not flexible based on perceived outdated limits. Hell, I just received a speeding ticket two months ago, and everyone else WAS going my speed, but I was the lucky person that got picked out. Damn, I should have used everyone else as an excuse to my actions when the cop stopped me. I'm sure he would have understood that breaking the law was OK, since the 35 MPH speed limit on Mclaughlin blvd is outdated. I could have also told him cyclists break the speed limit, too.

As if the driver of that 3000 pound vehicle is just looking for ways to kill you.

No, they aren't, but if I fuck up while biking, I stand a much greater chance of dying and they (maybe) have a dent in their vehicle. I'd like to live, and I ride with the assumption that people won't see me.

Stop spouting nonsense and stop trying to excuse the vast majority of your fellow bike riders who simply refuse to obey a simple law, instead expecting every car on the road to protect them from themselves and demanding special rights to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

I'll stop spouting when you go on a bike ride with me and see how it is on the other side and stop spouting nonsense yourself, like your arguments are any more valid than mine. I'm a driver too, but as far as I can tell you're not a cyclist. You're ignoring all the law violating that drivers do in order to push your anti-cyclist points, which as far as I can tell aren't backed up by anything other than your opinion.

I am a cyclist, and I'm sure you hate how slow I ride my bicycle as you blow by me, passing illegally.

It is not illegal to pass a bicyclist, no matter how slowly they are going. That's what bike lanes are for -- you get a lane, the car gets a lane, everyone should be happy. Except, apparently, you.

Yet you get angry if I break a law?

No, I get angry when you willfully and deliberately violate a simple, basic law that has no exceptions for how many wheels you are using (for n>0), claim that it's ok because other people break some other laws, and then claim the right to decide for yourself which traffic laws you should have to follow and which you don't need to.

Yes, that's the argument here in this area now. Bicyclists want the right to decide if they NEED to stop at stop signs and to just blow through if they decide they don't need to stop. I'd love to get that kind of consideration as a car driver, but nobody in their right mind would ever think of passing a law that says stop signs don't mean "stop" for cars. And yet bikers expect it to be that way even when the law doesn't say it.

And I bet you also hate how fast I drove my sports car and ride my motorcycle.

I don't give a fuck how fast you drive your sports car or ride your bike, unless you are doing it on my street where children are playing and there is a 25 MPH speed limit, or you are doing 95 on the freeway and endangering everyone around you by swerving into other people's lanes and cutting them off. And as long as you accept the responsibility for the tickets you get for doing it and not whine at 200 dB about how you should have the right to break whatever laws you don't think should apply to you.

Good thing you're smart enough to recognize that you're perfect and everybody else is an asshole.

Oh wait - that's unconstitutional and will just transform the US into a communist country like the PRK.

This really can't be anything more than a massive government boondoggle. I blame this idea on american voters who think that the gas tax is the devil. The money for roads has to come from somewhere, and if the gas tax isn't doing it, it will come through some other tax.

Personally, I think gas is too cheap anyway. Raise the gas tax on gasoline, and you'll see an explosion in public transportation, fuel-effi

It's easier than all that. A tax on gasoline is the best way to achieve the ends. If I'm driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, why should I pay the same amount as someone who's car had to burn 5 times as much gasoline to go the same distance?

Supposedly, in the study, you would only be taxed for driving in the state of Oregon

Oh, that's easy for a govmint agency to finesse: all miles are assumed to be within the state of Oregon unless you file form fmx99382c in triplicate with a complete log of your out-of-state miles, with itemized proofs, notarized.

Then read the odometer. It is already a crime to tamper with it. I don't want the government tracking my position. They have no business doing this. This idea is totally stupid on principle. Just add more cost to the vehicle too.

First, I think you will find that it is only a crime to tamper with it when it comes time to report the milage for a sale. IANAL, so don't quote me.

But more important, you missed the central idea of this plan. You get taxed EXTRA for driving where and when the government decides you shouldn't be driving. In Oregon, that's I5 and I205 and I405 in Portland rush hour. And other streets. Instead of building to meet capacity using the already-co

Why would GPS be necessary? It seems like an intrusive and expensive solution. If you get a new car, get an odometer statement for your records - Also present it when you register your car (I realize this step requires a little bit of cooperation between state and fed). Each year when you file your taxes, report the odometer readings on any registered vehicles. When you sell/destroy your car, you're responsible for the close-out mileage (maybe a fiery wreckage exemption).

Heck, just mandate that CarFax has to give the gov't a report on your car every year... they're one case where a private company is way better at spying on your car already than the federal government could ever hope to be.

in most states you have to pay the same gas tax on alternative fuels or your a "tax evader" That is one of the big problems with bio-diesel is that small home units are "too small" to properly inspect so they won't grant tax stamps... but you have to have the stamp tax to legally drive the vehicle or pay a fine (and of course the fine is more...) States used to play the same game with alcohol taxes too for home brewing too.. it wasn't "illegal" to brew at home, but you had no legal way to pay the tax for that single batch of beverage you brewed... so you were "moonshining".

I see per mile as a waste of time as well. The market has proven that Gas needs to be about $3+ per gallon before consumers really start paying attention to their driving habits. Today it's about $2.50 so the Feds and States should each take a quarter (that would MORE than double the highest gas tax in the country) and call it good. Commercial vehicles get tax reductions by paying a flat fee anyway but they may need to extend that to gas powered commercial trucks (UPS, Fed EX, contractors, fleets) but it's easy to even it out and not crush businesses.

Things you have to get at a pump like CNG, Ethanol, etc have tax built in already. Electric power has some difficulty, but it requires amperage beyond what most homes can provide without professional wiring installed by the utility/electrician, so there's your in to tag that specific meter with a tax code. BioDiesel and such are too rare and low volume to deal with right now.. grandfather them in.. as soon as somebody SELLS that fuel they would have to pay all the normal station taxes... problem solved.

Not only could this replace revenue lost from decreased gasoline consumption this wwould allow us to have variable tax rates on various roads. Higher congestion could lead to higher taxes encouraging people to car pool, use mass transit, etc.

this wwould allow us to have variable tax rates on various roads. Higher congestion could lead to higher taxes encouraging people to car pool, use mass transit, etc.

This requires the constant recording of not only how many miles you drive but where AND when you drive them. It will be a MANDATORY requirement that the government know where your car was at all times.

It is this fact that the Oregon DOT could not bother to admit when they were doing this testing. I know one of the people who was involved in t

Yes, but the problem is that as more and more bybrid and pure alternative fuel cars use the roads, less and less tax money will be available for road upkeep.

Imagine in 20 years if _every_ car were 100% electric (won't happen, I know). That would be a _huge_ drop in taxes earned through gasoline sales.

Basically this is an early change over to a system that will work regardless of fuel source.

uhm.. then you just tax the 'new' energy source. Much more effective and less privacy invasive. Gas tax is much better, because you also achive the purpose of moving the market towards more environmentally friendly cars and user behaviour.

This. Don't let the government fool you. They're not in the business of taxing you less or taking taxes away. They're in the business of lining their pockets. Yes, I've become a bit cynical over the years.

The same is true in Oregon with sales taxes. There are always people pushing them. What they always leave out is that they aren't going to decrease property taxes, state income taxes or any other source of state revenue accordingly. They're just going to tax you even more than before.

Not just a system regardless of fuel source but it's so much more. Imagine this:

2009 15 09 15:37 - Startup
(Snip)

Think bigger. (Knock knock.) "Hello. The vehicular mileage tracking system informs us that you've been making regular trips up and down a known drug smuggling corridor. We have a warrant to search your home and vehicle for any and all contraband and controlled substances."

Hey, in places too much power use is enough for them to look for a marijuana grow-op, and too much cash on your person is damn near proof you're going to buy drugs with it. Any new information source will get bent to the same ends as the old information sources, whether or not that's what was originally intended.

Those who CAN afford more fuel efficient cars will buy them, leaving those who cannot afford new cars to shoulder an increasing share of the burden.

So what? People have been doing that for decades, by buying newer cars and selling their old cars to poorer people, who then have to deal with the repair costs. I don't see anyone proposing that rich people be force do buy old clunkers and keep them repaired, and then give free brand-new cars to poor people. A few big repair bills will easily outweigh whateve

They may whine but I would counter their argument with an argument about wear and tear on the road. I have no stats to back up my claim but my guess would be that a tractor trailer or a hummer would do just a bit more damage to the road surface than a Prius would. They should, therefore, pay more than the prius owner.

You're more right than you know. I believe the road damage is proportional to the 3rd or 4th power of the vehicle's weight. Cars under 3000 lbs do almost no damage to roads (probably much less than the weather), while tractor-trailers do huge amounts.

However, the people with heavy vehicles don't care about this; they want everyone else to subsidize them. And the trucking industry has lots of lobbyists.

First off, don't you dare compare Commercial Trucks to oversize vehicles like SUV's. Commercial vehicles are a vital part of the nations infrastructure. They deliver ALL of the nations goods to local stores and other points of sale. The hummer is a gas wasting passenger vehicle that is just for looks. A tractor trailer has one purpose: move goods. Sure you can try to group them together but don't bitch when the price of goods rises due to an increase in fuel tax surcharges.

The Federal Gasoline tax does not "mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices". This tax proposal is little more than a way of netting some GPS companies gigabucks and getting GPS driving logs of every driver. Why else would they not JUST USE THE F**KING ODOMETER.

P.S. If you think that law enforcement isn't salivating of the idea that the could subpoena a driver's entire history you are beyond naive.

With the RFID hacking efforts, one could potentially change the identification number so that your car reported its mileage on another vehicle. Then some old fart is wondering why he's paying thousands in taxes when he just drives from home to the pharmacy and the occasional trip to the local buffet restaurant.

Why do number of miles driven matter? I'd think the central concern is wear on roads, which is also dependent on the weight of the vehicle. So they want to charge based on weight*miles. Guess what? A vehicle's gasoline usage is closely related to this; big heavy vehicle, more gasoline used per mile. So they could just increase the gasoline tax.

The state legislatures are getting in a lather over the idea that gas-electric hybrids will reduce their gas-tax-based state income. It's all rather reminiscent of the year 2000 panic over computer glitches - based in a sliver of truth, but WAAAAY overestimated. They're looking to use these mileage-based taxes as a way to future-proof, but as you mentioned, the better solution is to just increase gas taxes proportionally with the fraction of gas being used thanks to improved technology, so revenue can keep up with increased expenses, while keeping the burden on those who do the most practical use, rather than taxing a hybrid the same as a cement truck.

Quite a few states have emissions testing every year or every other year. Make them get a sticker that also has the mileage. The next year, you figure out the difference. Pay the tax. Odometer fails it's the same as if ODB readiness fails.

How often are these RFID checkpoints going to fail? Devices fall off cars, etc.

You are currenlty taxed to support the public roads when you drive on your private roads now. The gasoline tax (which you pay whether you drive on your private roads, public roads, or use it in your lawnmower) is for public road maintenance for the amount of wear you impose upon the public road system. An odometer system wouldn't be any more more a kludge but has the benefit of still being fairly accurate for hybrid, electric, and alternative fuel vehicles. And has the benefit of not tracking every move

I generally don't like the inclination to scream about privacy at the drop of a pin, but collection of GPS records do make me rather uncomfortable and I don't think it should be done.

I don't think the private sector should do this either except possibly in the broadest sense (e.g. it is ok for them to monitor if you're leaving the state because it might impact their insurance, the probability you're stealing the vehicle, etc, but not ok if they're trying to collect detailed information on where you go).

Brilliant Idea. Cause if we want to levy more taxes on the people that drive more, we need to track every car and build an extensive system of RFID scanners that covers the nation.

Of course every car already has a mileage based tracker build in. Its called the gas tank. You simply raise the gas tax, and you're done. In the process you also reward people with fuel efficient cars, and you make it easier for alternative fuels and electric cars to be competitive.

I suppose higher gas taxes have no lobby, while the RFID industry obviously has one./sigh

I'd like the public option (or even better, single payer). But I think I will pass on the car surveillance system. We already have a tax on how much we travel, it is called taxing gas. Large vehicles that waste gas and are harder on the roads naturally get taxed more than smaller fuel-efficient vehicles. I see nothing wrong with this system.

Hmm, maybe they are worried about tax revenue once electric cars come out? That would make a little bit of sense then. But I'd rather just have them read the odo

Or, instead of forcing consumers to buy some expensive gadget that could potentially be used for invasion of privacy, we could just use the simple odometer that is installed in every vehicle nowadays. The extra time spent having a person verify the odometer reading every year when the tag is renewed is nowhere near as wasteful as creating a whole new electronic system.
That is, of course, if you're going to insist on having this sort of tax.

Since this does nothing relevant that gasoline taxation doesn't already do, one can presume that it is intended as a tracking device.

If this is actually introduced, it will sooner or later be used to track down some horrible terrorist/paedophile on the run, and no one will object. The next year, it'll be available to track down whoever they want to track down, and if attitudes wiretapping are anything to go by, they won't need a warrant. Lucky it's such a blindingly stupid idea that they'll never actually implement it, right?

How the fuck can ANY study cost $154,500,000 That's one hundred and fifty four million, five hundred thousand dollars. I don't care WHAT they're proposing. A traffic STUDY with that kind of price tag should get a resounding and unanimous "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCKS!" from anyone voting on it.

I normally don't use so much profanity on slashdot but it's not like I can get any more obscene than what's being proposed.

Forget the shock that they want to track our locations. Forget that we already pay a road-use-tax via gasoline which is already levied more towards high mass inefficient vehicles than the low-mass efficient methods of travel. Let's focus our shock and outrage on the very idea that our government has evolved to the point where it cannot even propose a law without first undertaking a study funded by taxes which would otherwise employ several hundred people for a full year.

These are supposed to be our representatives. Unless you and a lot of other people I don't know have been calling them asking for more taxes on road use... preferably tracked by vehicle mile, they shouldn't be proposing this junk at all. As noted in the top post, the beneficiaries here are corporations. I suspect that the proposed study would be bid out to these same corporations to conclude that yes, it does seem to be a good idea.

We need to vote out every incumbent now. Turn over the entire cart and start fresh with no tolerance for this junk anymore.

First, who spends the time digging through the Congressional Record for this kind of stuff? Congress considers thousands of ideas every year, from the brilliant (health care reform) to the idiotic (Bridges to Nowhere). Most are DOA.
Second, this bill would establish a "pilot program" for alternatives to a fuel tax. What's the harm in trying out some different ideas?
Third, check opencongress.org and you find that this bill has (OMGWTFBBQ!) been referred to three committees.
What a scary threat to our

Can't seem to evade these cops, it's almost like they've got a tracking device on me....
You mean to tell me Mr. Officer, that you're giving me a ticket for speeding two weeks ago?
I'm being taxed on miles traveled after I was taxed for the price of having my car towed? It was a flatbed, the tires didn't touch the ground!
Wow, I've never seen 15 minute parking enforced so timely and yet so viciously...they've got tow-trucks lined up around the corner just waiting...

I sure miss the Bush Administration / Republican controlled congress because it at least paid lip service to personal freedoms.

Now lets see:*We are likely to end up with GPS in our cars*A 3400-3800 dollar tax for existing*Still likely to have some form of national ID forced on us*There is no end in sight to the invasive personal information searches for air travelers*Our financial records are going to accessible to *any* government agency that can claim some relationship to your health care no matter how obscure.

Any notion this is a free society is rapidly evaporating. I know I am going to get reams of replies about how Americans are still so much more free than X; but that is not the point! Its not about being freer than someone else or better than, its about being the freest society we can be. Frankly our government is drifting down the road of some type of neo-fascist totalitarian system. Its a long way from something you could describe that way but the seeds are being planted and the garden tended. This is very similar to how the Third Reich got its start, and no I am not saying Obama is anything like Hitler, what I am saying is that he and the current congressional majority are creating the conditions where an Hitler or a Bonaparte can find support and come to power.

I fully expect to be walking down the street in the next ten years and hearing the equivalent of "Papers please" pretty often the way things are going..

The gas tax has no real away around it. Really hard to cheat then its built in to the price of gas.

You put control of the taxation in the hands of the car owner and they will cheat.

RFID?-Just pop the transponder in the microwave for 2 seconds.. no proof of tamper.-Swap transponders with a car you don't drive much.-Clone transponder.

GPS gizmo?-Hit gizmo with a cheap tazer or ignition coil.. "Maybe my car got hit by lighting?"-Cover antenna with tinfoil before you leave...dont let it get a lock anywhere but your driveway.-Fuses blow out sometimes ya know..

You drive a new car with the odometer embedded in the ECU? No big deal."Tuners" hack and mess with their computers on new cars all the time.. would take about 1.4days for someone to come out with a way to manipulate a digital Ode if there was this big of a demand.

But, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the information collected is unreasonable---there are less intrusive measures (odometer).[fourth] Of course, there are a lot of you who think the Constitution is outdated and prefer a flexible interpretation.

Since it doesn't look like anybody actually READ the report Oregon put out on milage taxes I'll provide a link to the report. The reports themselves are in the top right of the page.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/mileage.shtml [oregon.gov]
They realize there is a privacy issue. Transportation Research Board (TRB) who conducts millions of dollars of research each year realizes there is a privacy issue. They are working on it. Please stop yelling "The sky is falling" so loudly and let's have a well informed, civil discussion about this. The gas tax hasn't been increased in ~20 years, so we'll have to pay for new roads somehow. If you hadn't received a raise in 20 years you'd be looking for new sources of income too. On top of that, vehicles are getting more miles to the gallon (a good thing), but are still damaging the road the same amount and paying less to do so (a bad thing).
Either way, I think I'm late to this discussion, but they are worthwhile reports to read and should be attached to every discussion on this topic.
I'd guess this paper should be read too, but I haven't read it myself.
http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf [dot.gov]